Big changes expected in alimony payments

Florida Bar opposes

A bill passed by the Florida Legislature and headed for the governor’s signature would make big changes to the state’s alimony laws and custody-sharing agreements, worrying family law advocates that women and children could be hurt.

Supporters of alimony reform say the changes are long overdue to correct an antiquated system more suited to the homemakers of past decades than today’s families.

The law eliminates permanent alimony arrangements and sets new standards for what constitutes a short- or long-term marriage and allows a modification or end to payments when the alimony payer retires.

Passed by the Senate this month and the House on Thursday with a 85-31 vote, the bill could alter countless cases that were already decided. It’s written to apply retroactively and would go into effect July 1 if Gov. Rick Scott signs the bill.

But it also includes new language about “time sharing,” which says that, with some exceptions, equal time with each parent is presumed to be in the child’s best interest.

Much about the reform looks good on paper, said Cynthia Hawkins DeBose, a family law expert and law professor at Stetson University College of Law. With these changes, Florida will be among only a few states to tackle widespread changes to alimony, she said.

“In that respect, for good or for bad, this would be something seen as a front-running. cutting-edge change,” DeBose said.

But in practice she’s worried about the constitutionality of retroactively changing alimony agreements, language that appears to end alimony payments when the payee is in a “supportive relationship” but not remarried and the change in definition of a short-term marriage, which would now be under 11 years — longer than half of marriages last. A mid-term marriage is 11 to 19 years.

Scott’s spokeswoman, Jackie Schutz, said the governor is reviewing the legislation.

Alan Frisher, a certified divorce financial analyst and president of Family Law Reform, said the changes will help families by removing lasting bitterness between ex-spouses brought by money and custody battles. Family Law Reform, formerly known as Florida Alimony Reform, has been the lead in pushing the changes, which got to a vote but failed last year.

“This would bring consistency and predictability in this law, and right now the totally arbitrary decisions create chaos,” said Frisher. “This is for the children, future generations. My children will never have to experience what I and so many others have experienced and that’s probably the most important thing.”

Frisher said he paid permanent alimony to his ex-wife until it was eliminated through mediation. He said provisions in the bill still allow flexibility for judges to go outside the guidelines for when to award short or longer-term alimony based on a set formula as long as they put their reasoning in writing.

Florida Bar opposes

But the family law section of The Florida Bar opposes the reforms because there’s no evidence the reforms are in the best interest of children, said Carin Porras, chair of the section.

“It’s a concern to us that we’re putting parents in a position where we’re making it very difficult to make a decision to stay home and take care of children,” Porras said.

Spouses who often sacrifice job training and work experience may not be able to count on support later if the marriage ends, she said.

“Many women will be in their 60s, and because of these limitations, they’re kind of out in the cold.”

Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, a sponsor of the Senate bill, did not return a call for comment.

The new law will presume that spouses in “short-term” marriages under 11 years should not receive support, and “bridge the gap” rehabilitative payments are favored. For “long-term” marriages 20 years or longer, payments for a set duration will no longer be permanent.

Leslie Jones of Jacksonville was given permanent alimony when her marriage ended after 28 years. That was 10 years ago, and she’s since become a realtor and says she can support herself. But Jones said it doesn’t compare to the money generated by a business she and her husband started together, and was made possible when she supported him through school and stayed home for art of their marriage.

But is it fair?

Her ex got the business, she said, and she got permanent alimony as her portion of their success.

“I understand it from the man’s point of view, and I don’t really know what the answer is,” Jones said. “But when I got a divorce I’d been married half my life. I worked hard for what we had. Why should he walk away enjoying the benefits, and I have to start completely over at 50 years old?”

But for Glenn Pohlman, a 77-year-old retired doctor who has been considered disabled more than 20 years, paying alimony has meant painting windows and climbing roofs to maintain income.

He said attorneys have consistently told him modification is unlikely, because he still had savings. He hopes reforms will pass.

“The problem is, the judge’s hands are tied,” Pohlman said. “If this is what the law says about lifetime alimony, you must pay it.”

The inclusion of child care provisions in the law is one of the biggest concerns for Ashley Myers, a Jacksonville attorney certified in marriage and family law.

Since the amount of time children spend with each parent is part of child support calculations, a 50-50 split could bring down or eliminate child support payments even if the visitation schedule promising split time never really happens, Myers said. Even the $50 filing fee to reopen a case could prevent some parents from seeking help from the courts, Myers said.

Women statistically will be impacted more, she said, and the power imbalance is probably another reason more women didn’t speaking out against this bill — many of whom don’t want to upset their former spouse, or speak publicly about fears of a future divorce.

“At the end of the day, you have to protect your own self interest,” Myers said.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

In NYS I knew a man who had divorced and some time later got remarried and had children. He was forever financially screwed because, even though his ex-wife had gotten REMARRIED he STILL had to pay her full alimony. HOW is that fair or correct? I'm glad they are finally doing away with such a moronic idea at least SOMEPLACE. Yes, if you supported someone and you started a successful business together, you should be entitled to HALF of everything you accumulated over the TIME YOU WERE TOGETHER. Not the time before or after. THAT is fair and correct. But if you're an able bodied person get out and get a job. It might be tough, but it's a road you have to hough and tough out, like everyone else. One person should never benefit more from a divorce; equal should be the measure. As for kids, they should have equal time with both parents, unless there's a reaason why it's not safe etc... not this 80% with Ma, and 20% with dad. If one parent is a dead beat and doesn't see their kids and or pay child support, they should loose their parental rights under the notion they aren't TRULY a parent. Any fool can have a child or create one, but it takes a PARENT to raise one.

When women stay at home to raise kids and keep the family unit together, and then their husband decides he wants to trade her in for a newer model, she certainly deserves the absolute MOST from that man. And vice versa. So, if the higher revenue-producing spouse wants the divorce, they should pay their way out of the marriage or until death do us part.

If you are the parent of a child, married or single, man or woman, involved in care giving or not, in state or moved away, meaningful financial child support should be mandatory for 21 years. Period -- end of story.